If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Well when you read the full article then piledriver will only save 5-10% energy. When you look at fx-61/81 that would mean that piledriver will use at max 1x w less, so still around 110w. When you look at ivb, then intel will use also less energy, from 95w to 77w (quad cores). And intel only needs 4 true cores to match that funny 8/4 core mix of amd amd definitely needs too much energy for the speed you get from it. in order to keep up with intel amd needs to rise the frequency way over 4 ghz. when you look at the single core speed then amd is not even faster than the i3 entry cpus (maybe even a higher clocked pentium g is enough). just by comparing an amd cpu vs intel cpu at same clock speed with cinebench in single core mode you should be able to interpolate the frequency amd needs to keep up with intel - just throwing more cores into the chip does not solve this basic issue...

but a higher clock rate do solve this basic issue! because of this this new clock engine is so important!

now you point out that amd need more yes more they do have zram but if wikipedia is right then they don't use it right now.

so yes it is posible to fix both the power consuming and the speed!

amd only need to put ZRAM and the new clock engine together.

(edit) @kano and you always make wrong comparisons if you wana have single threat performance and only a 4 core then compare it to an AMD FX-Series FX-4170, 4x 4.20GHz or a Opteron 6208 but yes i know you always do it in your intel fanboy way. intel-fanboy-way=pick always the wrong amd cpu to make sure amd never win.

(edit) @ kano the new piledriver 4core fx-4270 do have 4,7ghz(base clock without turbo)@125 watt tdp

Comment

i dislike that you need a xeon branded cpu for ecc ram support, otherwise intel is definitely better. that has got nothing to do because i would be an intel fan, amd is definitely much slower. and even if amd sometimes produces good chips they absolutely fail with gfx drivers. you see that with the new amd hd 7 series. those chips have got a similar hardware h264 encoder like intel gpus, but amd is too stupid to provide drivers that enable the feature. you basically want that in a cpu as well - or the default chipset for piledriver (in the cpu is impossible with am3+ but for fmX it could be added). amd dislikes single core benchmarks like the devil does not like holy water.

i know how you think you think the fx-4170 is slower per watt usage than your favor intel 4 core.
but i also know you don't compare it to a opteron 6208 you don't do it because you can't.
but in fact its a 80watt cpu and its singlet-heated the double the speed than a fx8150.
but! you love intel sooo much you don't care about an Opteron 6208..

Comment

Well when you read the full article then piledriver will only save 5-10% energy. When you look at fx-61/81 that would mean that piledriver will use at max 1x w less, so still around 110w. When you look at ivb, then intel will use also less energy, from 95w to 77w (quad cores). And intel only needs 4 true cores to match that funny 8/4 core mix of amd amd definitely needs too much energy for the speed you get from it. in order to keep up with intel amd needs to rise the frequency way over 4 ghz. when you look at the single core speed then amd is not even faster than the i3 entry cpus (maybe even a higher clocked pentium g is enough). just by comparing an amd cpu vs intel cpu at same clock speed with cinebench in single core mode you should be able to interpolate the frequency amd needs to keep up with intel - just throwing more cores into the chip does not solve this basic issue...

Its quite apparent that Intel is way in the lead. In fact, we are back to the 386/486 days, when Intel was so far ahead of any competition, that they could price their high end processors in the $$$ thousand dollar range. Right now, the top of the line i7 will cost you $1,399. Intel can get away with this pricing, because there is no competition at the high end. So yes, AMD is losing... but in the end, we will all lose, as Ivy Bridge will probably be the last generation of Intel Desktop processor for a long time... there is just no need for them to continue to advance processors without any competition.

Comment

Its quite apparent that Intel is way in the lead. In fact, we are back to the 386/486 days, when Intel was so far ahead of any competition, that they could price their high end processors in the $$$ thousand dollar range. Right now, the top of the line i7 will cost you $1,399. Intel can get away with this pricing, because there is no competition at the high end. So yes, AMD is losing... but in the end, we will all lose, as Ivy Bridge will probably be the last generation of Intel Desktop processor for a long time... there is just no need for them to continue to advance processors without any competition.

kano just read your writing and go into the next computer shop and buy his next intel system.